Thank you for visiting our NYCFC forum! We invite you to REGISTER and join our growing member base in discussion!
Registered members can join competitions and win monthly prizes.
So what are you waiting for!? Join us!
This is a great MLS community where you can discuss New York City Football Club and other MLS football teams as well as international and other domestic league teams.

Based on the thread I'm looking at, you brought up Antifa first. As soon as Ulrich linked to the tweet, actually. So giving SanBartG shit for bringing up Antifa seems misplaced to me.

Like he said, I think everybody agrees that the Proud Boys are a concern. I'm glad there is official institutional recognition of this. What are you trying to gain by mischaracterizing someone else's position? How does it help us to find more things that we can agree upon?

1) Someone who has been attending matches is involved in a hate group and has been charged with assault. Everyone seems to consider this a problem thankfully

2) Additional attendees, associated with a couple of supporters groups have been, and continue to associate with the person in 1. A few(?) fans are engaging in "doxxing" and suggesting these people should be banned as well, or should at least disassociate themselves from the person in 1. Whether other supporters should be "doxxed" for being friendly with someone charged with this kind of crime would be a good debate to have

3) No one has identified any attendee who can be labeled as "Antifa" that has been charged with assault

4) No one has identified or "doxxed" any attendee who can be shown associating with members of "Antifa", whether or not they are attending matches, that have committed assault,

5) The club has done, provably, nothing. No anti-hate anti-violence statement, no publicly admitted ban of any supporter.

The combination of 1 and 5 is very concerning to me, and hopefully concerning to a vast majority of fans. It's not even remotely uncommon in world football for banning orders to be announced, enforced, and those banned to be publicly named. The club's sunshine media policy of only promoting and marketing itself and never being in front of negative things is one of its worst traits.

The last several pages have been a debate that 3 and 4 are true without evidence (if you have it provide it), and that the opposite of 5 is true and is in some kind of imminent danger of being unfairly applied only to those in fascist hate groups. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're arguing in some amount of good faith, especially since arguing online is so clunky. But continually trying to insert a hypothetical for reasons that aren't happening into a discussion of a thing that did happen, seems like a stretch of good faith.

1) Someone who has been attending matches is involved in a hate group and has been charged with assault. Everyone seems to consider this a problem thankfully

2) Additional attendees, associated with a couple of supporters groups have been, and continue to associate with the person in 1. A few(?) fans are engaging in "doxxing" and suggesting these people should be banned as well, or should at least disassociate themselves from the person in 1. Whether other supporters should be "doxxed" for being friendly with someone charged with this kind of crime would be a good debate to have

3) No one has identified any attendee who can be labeled as "Antifa" that has been charged with assault

4) No one has identified or "doxxed" any attendee who can be shown associating with members of "Antifa", whether or not they are attending matches, that have committed assault,

5) The club has done, provably, nothing. No anti-hate anti-violence statement, no publicly admitted ban of any supporter.

The combination of 1 and 5 is very concerning to me, and hopefully concerning to a vast majority of fans. It's not even remotely uncommon in world football for banning orders to be announced, enforced, and those banned to be publicly named. The club's sunshine media policy of only promoting and marketing self and never being in front of negative things is one of its worst traits.

The last several pages have been a debate that 3 and 4 are true without evidence (if you have it provide it), and that the opposite of 5 is true and is in some kind of imminent danger of being unfairly applied only to those in fascist hate groups. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're arguing in some amount of good faith, especially since arguing online is so clunky. But continually trying to insert a hypothetical for reasons that aren't happening into a discussion of a thing that did happen, seems like a stretch of good faith.

Click to expand...

Thanks for getting the ball rolling with this summary.

I have seen reasonable evidence of 3 and 4. But I wouldn't share it because I don't trust that it would be handled appropriately. This is also why I have concerns with the practice you refer to in 2.

Two practices that I consider better options -
1) actually engaging with the people that one would identify / doxx vs. putting it on the Internet where it could be handled inappropriately.
2) reporting it to authorities who I am thinking are generally more qualified to ascertain the validity of the evidence and its implications.

I don't think that anybody has argued that the opposite of 5 is true, but just so I'm sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that people are arguing that the club has made a public statement on this? I haven't seen that.

In absence of knowing what the club would say, I think it's difficult for people to say either way whether they are afraid of the club applying it unfairly. I think it's fair to want the club to show some leadership on this, and fair to want the club to apply that line fairly.

I think the crux of the debate has been about where that line should be drawn, in very precise terms. I think it's a debate that's been muddied by the broader characteristics of a very tribal sociopolitical landscape, which has made it easy or default to assume that people we appear to disagree with are acting in bad faith, and crucially, to use that in order to justify bad faith behavior in retaliation. The latter essentially closes the loop and results in an escalation of bad faith behavior which makes it difficult to recognize what we have in common and easy to see what divides us. It may be fun to win points on the Internet, but ultimately is an obstacle to progress.

1) Someone who has been attending matches is involved in a hate group and has been charged with assault. Everyone seems to consider this a problem thankfully

2) Additional attendees, associated with a couple of supporters groups have been, and continue to associate with the person in 1. A few(?) fans are engaging in "doxxing" and suggesting these people should be banned as well, or should at least disassociate themselves from the person in 1. Whether other supporters should be "doxxed" for being friendly with someone charged with this kind of crime would be a good debate to have

3) No one has identified any attendee who can be labeled as "Antifa" that has been charged with assault

4) No one has identified or "doxxed" any attendee who can be shown associating with members of "Antifa", whether or not they are attending matches, that have committed assault,

5) The club has done, provably, nothing. No anti-hate anti-violence statement, no publicly admitted ban of any supporter.

The combination of 1 and 5 is very concerning to me, and hopefully concerning to a vast majority of fans. It's not even remotely uncommon in world football for banning orders to be announced, enforced, and those banned to be publicly named. The club's sunshine media policy of only promoting and marketing itself and never being in front of negative things is one of its worst traits.

The last several pages have been a debate that 3 and 4 are true without evidence (if you have it provide it), and that the opposite of 5 is true and is in some kind of imminent danger of being unfairly applied only to those in fascist hate groups. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're arguing in some amount of good faith, especially since arguing online is so clunky. But continually trying to insert a hypothetical for reasons that aren't happening into a discussion of a thing that did happen, seems like a stretch of good faith.

Click to expand...

This is well put. I will also add, that with 1 and 2, some of those individuals have been tied to violence surrounding NYCFC games (River Ave Casuals)

1) Someone who has been attending matches is involved in a hate group and has been charged with assault. Everyone seems to consider this a problem thankfully

2) Additional attendees, associated with a couple of supporters groups have been, and continue to associate with the person in 1. A few(?) fans are engaging in "doxxing" and suggesting these people should be banned as well, or should at least disassociate themselves from the person in 1. Whether other supporters should be "doxxed" for being friendly with someone charged with this kind of crime would be a good debate to have

3) No one has identified any attendee who can be labeled as "Antifa" that has been charged with assault

4) No one has identified or "doxxed" any attendee who can be shown associating with members of "Antifa", whether or not they are attending matches, that have committed assault,

5) The club has done, provably, nothing. No anti-hate anti-violence statement, no publicly admitted ban of any supporter.

The combination of 1 and 5 is very concerning to me, and hopefully concerning to a vast majority of fans. It's not even remotely uncommon in world football for banning orders to be announced, enforced, and those banned to be publicly named. The club's sunshine media policy of only promoting and marketing itself and never being in front of negative things is one of its worst traits.

The last several pages have been a debate that 3 and 4 are true without evidence (if you have it provide it), and that the opposite of 5 is true and is in some kind of imminent danger of being unfairly applied only to those in fascist hate groups. I always want to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're arguing in some amount of good faith, especially since arguing online is so clunky. But continually trying to insert a hypothetical for reasons that aren't happening into a discussion of a thing that did happen, seems like a stretch of good faith.

Click to expand...

Fair points and I would agree with you if people were arguing only to ban the identified person and people that are known to associate with him. That’s not how I interpret their argument. To me, it seems they are arguing to ban all members of proud boys because one or several of them were known NYCFC supporters and arrested for assault. I get that.

Here’s where the argument seems to break down- you have other alt-right groups, potentially violent, that may have members attending our games that have not been arrested but certainly could.

However, it seems some people here would ban them also simply because they are fascist. If that’s a misinterpretation of the argument, they can simply say so. But the terms fascist and proud-boys have been used interchangably when advocating for banning people.

So the argument some appear to be making is that “ban all fasicist regardless of whether or not they have been arrested or members of a group where some have.” Again, maybe i’ve misingerpeted it, I don’t think so. So if membership of a group is grounds to be banned, why limit it to only fascists? Antifa IS violent (as are other non-political groups). Ban them also.

Aside from that- why does it require one specific person being identified as a supporter to say “violence is bad and we don’t want violent groups attending matches.”

We know Antifa IS violent and we know they attend our games. Why shouldn’t that be enough?

Would it really change your opinion if we actually identified 1 or several people in antifa that attended some matches? All the sudden that changes everything? I think that’s the stretch.

We don’t need someone specifically associated with the club to condemn violence by fascists, antifa, hell’s angels or anyone else.

I don't think that anybody has argued that the opposite of 5 is true, but just so I'm sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that people are arguing that the club has made a public statement on this? I haven't seen that.

Click to expand...

More clearly that there's been an in-depth discussion of how far the ban should extend, when there's no proof that any banning even exists. That's a little cart before horse for me, why go to the mattresses on a possibility of widespread banning that seems 99.99% likely to not happen. I think the club should ban one supporter who's been charged with assault, and they should do it publicly as some kind of discouragement to hate/violent elements from associating themselves with the club. Anything to be debated beyond that would follow from at least that action.

More clearly that there's been an in-depth discussion of how far the ban should extend, when there's no proof that any banning even exists. That's a little cart before horse for me, why go to the mattresses on a possibility of widespread banning that seems 99.99% likely to not happen. I think the club should ban one supporter who's been charged with assault, and they should do it publicly as some kind of discouragement to hate/violent elements from associating themselves with the club. Anything to be debated beyond that would follow from at least that action.

Click to expand...

Totally agree but you’re in the minority about banning only that person. But as I said before, whatever standard applies, should apply for all.

More clearly that there's been an in-depth discussion of how far the ban should extend, when there's no proof that any banning even exists. That's a little cart before horse for me, why go to the mattresses on a possibility of widespread banning that seems 99.99% likely to not happen. I think the club should ban one supporter who's been charged with assault, and they should do it publicly as some kind of discouragement to hate/violent elements from associating themselves with the club. Anything to be debated beyond that would follow from at least that action.

Click to expand...

What about people who have been convicted and served their time?

(Not whataboutism in the sense that it's a genuine question. Perhaps naive, but genuine)

(Not whataboutism in the sense that it's a genuine question. Perhaps naive, but genuine)

Click to expand...

Personal opinion, if someone was acquitted or served their time, they should have a right to reapply. I think the club should be acting publicly now and should, given that these are charges and not convictions, have a mechanism to review the case if things change, I assume they would. To the bigger question, a couple articles on how things work here and in the UK, including how banning orders can be lifted.

Personal opinion, if someone was acquitted or served their time, they should have a right to reapply. I think the club should be acting publicly now and should, given that these are charges and not convictions, have a mechanism to review the case if things change, I assume they would. To the bigger question, a couple articles on how things work here and in the UK, including how banning orders can be lifted.